Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Earl who wrote (81)	4/23/2003 3:28:44 AM
From: jag (Hijacked)	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

It seems more and more like 9/11 was conceived as a pretext for some other motive. What the motive was we may speculate on a number of possibilities. Would individuals in our government conspire to sacrifice the lives of thousands of Americans to attain their objective? Would they commit an assault, or knowingly allow an assault on their own people so as to have a pretext to justify their occupation of the middle-east? The answer to both of these questions in my opinion is YES. We need only look at Pearl Harbor and the evidence which suggests that the fleet there was sacrificed for a reason. What adds more fuel to the conspiracy theory is that no investigation has yet taken place.

To: Don Earl who wrote (81)	4/23/2003 4:10:26 AM
From: Emile Vidrine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

"So far Bush is the only clear beneficiary of the 9/11 tragedy, hence motive." False! Had you said: "Bush was one of the beneficiaries of 9/11, I would agree. Israel was, by far, the chief beneficiary of 9/11 and the Arab nations and Palestinian the chief losers. If we apply the ancient Roman principle of Que Bono (Who benefits), Israel is chief suspect. 9/11 has helped Israel achieve 90% of her geopolitical objectives.

To: Don Earl who wrote (81)	4/23/2003 4:21:48 AM
From: WhatsUpWithThat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

In 2001, the Taliban outlawed opium production, which would have put one hell of a dent in England's heroine market Wait, wait, I must have read that wrong! You're telling me Blair persuaded Bush to go in after the Taliban because they'd cut the heroin supply to Britain, is that what you said there? Guess my time is wasted here. WUWT

To: Don Earl who wrote (81)	4/23/2003 6:35:37 AM
From: Rock_nj	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

According to a number of write ups I've seen, going after the Taliban was Blair's idea and a condition of British support for the war on Iraq. In 2001, the Taliban outlawed opium production, which would have put one hell of a dent in England's heroine market. With the elimination of the Taliban, Afghanistan was back in the top spot for opium production by the end of 2002. Could you expand on this statement? While I agree that there is definitely a cover up regarding 9/11 and it was either carried out or allowed to happen for ulterior motives by wealthy elites, like justifying wars for oil and a crackdown on civil liberties, I am a bit confused why you bring in herion into the picture? I know drugs like herion have been used by wealthy elites as a form of social suppression or control in decades past. Is that what you are suggesting? That the wealthy elites in Britian didn't like the fact that the herion supply was drying up and they were losing control of the people in the inner cities, so they wanted to do away with the Tailban and restore the herion supply?